Would you buy a B100

Takeoffpower · Post by **Takeoffpower** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:56 am

What is the story on buying a B100. Would you. Are they any good. Does anyone have any feedback from flying one, in terms of range, performance, maintenance costs, etc. Or should a person just forget it and get a Be200

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:14 am

I'd just forget it, and get a G-V!

3Green · Post by **3Green** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:21 am

I have had friends that operated a B100. They purchased it outside of Canada and imported it themselves. They operated it for 2 years or so, and I never heard any complaints. At the time I was on a straight 100 and witnessed them pass by us, after we took off 8 or 9 minutes before them. It's a quick plane (for a 100).

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:30 am

Someone won the lottery....

bcflyer · Post by **bcflyer** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:48 am

Never flew the B-100 but I have some friends that have. Apparently its alot faster, climbs alot better, but is also louder inside. (garret engines tend to do that!! LOL) I'm sure if you do an online search you can find all the performance numbers you need. You really can't go wrong with any of the King Air line. All very solid nice flying aircraft.

marktheone · Post by **marktheone** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:02 pm

It's a good airplane of you're going to be flying a lot. If you're not flying it a lot it is burdened down with the Beech calendar items. I've looked at them and found that you need to fly around 50 or 60 a month to make it work.

Anonymous1 · Post by **Anonymous1** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:26 pm

Flew it for 700 hours. Garretts suck for starting in the cold or with a tailwind. At gross, topped out at 210. At 250, 275 lbs an hour per side with maybe 240 true. Same problem as any other airplane....old airframe makes for non-stop snags. I think a mid 90's Beech 200 is the best value out there for a used King Air. Don't just think purchase cost...consider where you will find parts for an airframe with only 100 or so ever built, plus an out of production airframe.

oldtimer · Post by **oldtimer** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 3:09 pm

Faster than a speeding bullet. Can leap tall buildings in a single bound. Faster than a 100 or A100, slower than a B 200. 4.6 PSID pressurization differential is a drawback. Cannot get to altitude to get long range, Good short haul airplane but as mentioned, the Garretts are a bitch to start if left out in the cold, at least compared to the Pratts. Garretts are more fuel efficient than the Pratts,

greenwich · Post by **greenwich** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 3:30 pm

The B's are great airplanes. Fast. Reliable. Good on gas. And contrary to popular belief they work well in the winter...if U keep them tented and plugged-in all the time (or hangared).

But they have an 'achilles heel': 9,600lb Zero Fuel Weight.

The B's worked fine for us until TC 'upped' the Standard Weights last year. Now we essentially have to fly with one pax less!

Bottom line: If you are planning to use a B for VIP work (ie female pax, light bags, corporate stuff) it is a winner! But if you are planning to do Crew Changes, fishing camps, etc., look for another A/C.

G

wheeliedriver · Post by **wheeliedriver** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 5:43 pm

A King Air B100 can be a great airplane if it suits your needs. Figure out what you need your airplane to do before you decide what airplane to buy.

If you need a pressurized plane to haul 9 people with minimal gear in and out of reasonable sized strips a short distance IFR then it might be the right plane for you. If you plan on taking pax with gear maybe you take the hit in cruise and install a pod.

If you need to move these people between short strips then a B200 might give you enough power to pull that off.

If these people can live without a pressurized airplane maybe an EMB-110, or a Beech 99 will do the job with a lower operating cost.

And maybe your passengers don't need a two crew plane, or even ifr - so a chieftan might be right.

So unless you won the lottery and you're looking for something fun to tool around in - make sure you've got the right plane for the job you need to do.

Machiavelli · Post by **Machiavelli** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:50 am

Generally, the B100 price tag is at least 1/3 to 1/2 that of the KA200 so that might be the deciding factor. Of course, the KA200 is far superior and deserves the higher initial cost. It's got more power, better acceleration, better handling, more room for your legs, more power... oh wait, I said that one. Fuhgetaboutit.

But, I'd say the key to flying any King Air is good maintenance, a warm hangar and deep pockets. IMHO.

Turkey · Post by **Turkey** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:18 am

Where exactly do you find more room for your legs in a 200 vs a 100? (I've never flown either.)

godsrcrazy · Post by **godsrcrazy** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 11:11 am

Thatès strange considering it is the same cabin.

Machiavelli · Post by **Machiavelli** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 7:24 pm

Strange yes. It would seem that you may have missed that it was a reference to "Donnie Brasco" where Al Pacino is arguing with his gang the merits of the Cadillac over the Lincoln. Go ahead, pull Top Gun out the VCR and watch it. It's good.

Back in the real world, somehow the 200 I flew did seem to have more room than any 100 I ever chop-and-dropped. I believe it had to do with the bulkhead and/or seat tracks, both of which may or may not be adjustable. All things being equal, the 100 and 200 have the same cabin dimensions.